Generalissimo Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 In CNRP the man with the most detailed schematics often wins by default. Is Technology in CNRP becoming too complicated? Why not streamline everything! [quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1319832862' post='2833877']. . . Since I've been part of CNRP, I've seen the level of arguing about technology continue to increase at a exponential rate, and rulings involving technology have become more and more prevalent. . .[/quote] Are arguments about technology disrupting battlefield narrative in CNRP? To avoid arguments about technology detailed technology descriptions should not be mandatory. If a country has X technology their fighter jet performs at a level of X technology – details not necessary. Maybe relative performance based on technology levels? 100 tech < 1,000 tech < 10,000 tech < 100,000 tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 I'd support this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 We've already done a tech scale reform, we really don't need to do anything else to tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1319863849' post='2834252'] In CNRP the man with the most detailed schematics often wins by default. Is Technology in CNRP becoming too complicated? Why not streamline everything! Are arguments about technology disrupting battlefield narrative in CNRP? To avoid arguments about technology detailed technology descriptions should not be mandatory. If a country has X technology their fighter jet performs at a level of X technology – details not necessary. Maybe relative performance based on technology levels? 100 tech < 1,000 tech < 10,000 tech < 100,000 tech [/quote] We already have the tech scale. You also have to consider that some RPers like to customize their military, for example, designing tanks to be geared toward urban combat and anti-air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1319892407' post='2834395']We've already done a tech scale reform, we really don't need to do anything else to tech.[/quote]But recently schematics have become a big deal. . . Why penalize people for being vague about their technology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1319898217' post='2834429']You also have to consider that some RPers like to customize their military, for example, designing tanks to be geared toward urban combat and anti-air.[/quote]Customization is possible while remaining vague. My [insert designation] tank is an X technology vehicle geared toward urban combat. Players should be able to develop technology, within the rule set, so much as a player desires. Vagueness should be possible, but not mandatory. Edited October 29, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1319898556' post='2834431'] But recently schematics have become a big deal. . . Why penalize people for being vague about their technology? [/quote] If people are being vague with their tech, that's their problem, not mine. If I can't figure out what all a custom vehicle can bring to bear, then I just assume it has equal components to a similar vehicle of the era. Like if someone like EM built a tank but didn't offer up it's armor then I would assume it's armor is equal to an M1 Abrams. If some 3rd world nation makes a tank, then I assume it's equal to a T-80. Simple logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1319898757' post='2834432'] “My [insert designation] tank is an X technology vehicle geared toward urban combat.” Players should be able to develop technology, within the rule set, so much as a player desires. [/quote] That would be fine, except people have the idea that high tech wins all the time, no matter what. If I have great pilots going into the air in an early 90's MiG, even if someone has the worst pilots in the world, they still win because they're in an F-22. That's why I hate tech. And yes, that does happen. Early on, before everyone started !@#$%*ing and moaning about how a jet engine could be designed in a particular design with particular materials and a particular number or rotor blades to give you an extra 10 mph, people were !@#$%*ing and moaning about "OMG! HOW COULD YOUR PLANES POSSIBLY SHOOT EVEN ONE OF MINE DOWN?! I AM IN 2010 AND YOU ARE ONLY IN 1999!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 This is what lolteching and tech efficiency was. It was a horrible system and took all the skill out of battlefield RPing. So no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1319900622' post='2834444']That would be fine, except people have the idea that high tech wins all the time, no matter what. If I have great pilots going into the air in an early 90's MiG, even if someone has the worst pilots in the world, they still win because they're in an F-22. That's why I hate tech. And yes, that does happen. Early on, before everyone started !@#$%*ing and moaning about how a jet engine could be designed in a particular design with particular materials and a particular number or rotor blades to give you an extra 10 mph, people were !@#$%*ing and moaning about "OMG! HOW COULD YOUR PLANES POSSIBLY SHOOT EVEN ONE OF MINE DOWN?! I AM IN 2010 AND YOU ARE ONLY IN 1999!"[/quote]Oh, yeah. . . I kind of forgot about that. It's just as bad! Where do were stike the balance>? Things aren't really any better now. Battlefield narratives are depressingly derailed by unnecessary technology debates. I’m trying to read a story, I don’t particularly care how many rotor blades an engine have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1319900947' post='2834447']This is what lolteching and tech efficiency was. It was a horrible system and took all the skill out of battlefield RPing. So no.[/quote]I would be generous saying current battles are usually resolved by technology semantics that also takes all the skill out of battlefield RPing. Edited October 29, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 After the greatness of such individuals as LVN I'll never support a system that allows loltech'ing in this form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1319907206' post='2834507']After the greatness of such individuals as LVN I'll never support a system that allows loltech'ing in this form.[/quote]Yet the current system is broken, how do we fix it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1319907343' post='2834509'] Yet the current system is broken, how do we fix it? [/quote] It isn't broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1319907164' post='2834506'] I would be generous saying current battles are usually resolved by technology semantics – that also takes all the skill out of battlefield RPing. [/quote] I have to again strongly disagree with you there. Your claims on this aren't backed up by any real record here. Vektor DEMOLISHED Lyn last Fall, and my air force helped in that. Lyn was sporting a significantly higher technology level. Shammy in my opinion was probably going to have won his air war with Curri had the war continued, despite Curri having access to my more advanced planes. On land my tanks beat Martens back despite being significantly less uber armor/ gun tech. All of these things are about how you use them. Its not about individual tech stats. The fact is is that if somebody here is fighting and knows to instead of fighting a line battle with front line 'gun' units, they know to hit the enemy support structure, obstruct communication and sensors, destroy maintenance facilities etc. They are going to have the advantage. But in my mind that is about skill and tactics. Its about knowing what unit serves what purpose and using them in concert effectively. The only technical dispute I am aware of at the moment is over one plane, that is really alone in what it claims to be capable of. To say one should open up the door for the deeply unpopular lolteching TE system seems to me to be something thats foolish. If anything I think that a simple solution of just not claiming a single unit to be godly compared to everything else and way outside current top class units IRL would be a simple a common sense solution to tech disputes. I also think we could do with a bit less mega engineering but thats my personal preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShammySocialist Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 Might I also add that despite people having access to what could be said as "more advanced designs", the same rules apply with technology here as they do in real life. [i]The technology is only as smart as the user.[/i] Triyun could sell his F-1s or F-2s to an ally, but if that ally does not correctly use that technology in a tactical environment, taking care to actually utilize that technology correctly, they could be squandering the advantage they have by making ill-informed tactical decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1319907574' post='2834512']It isn't broken.[/quote]It it’s not broken then why do so many players believe it is? I'm not the only one. Edited October 29, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 It tends to be in my observation, that players believe somethings broken if there is one argument about something. The fact remains though, that as far as I am aware there has only been on contentious technology argument in CN RP recently, and that is over EMs upper tier plane. One case does not make a rule. Beyond that I'd challenge you to find anyone who actually RPs war with others who agree that tech efficiency is a superior system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='TheShammySocialist' timestamp='1319913401' post='2834581'] Triyun could sell his F-1s or F-2s to an ally, but if that ally does not correctly use that technology in a tactical environment, taking care to actually utilize that technology correctly, they could be squandering the advantage they have by making ill-informed tactical decisions. [/quote] Agreed. For example, ordering unescorted bombers and paradrop aircraft to attack heavily defended military bases and cities. Or throwing thousands of unescorted landing ships at a heavily defended harbor that also has four battleships parking in it. No amount of tech superiority would cover up such massive blunders. Edited October 29, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 Just as a note (and example of poor technology usage and foolishness) HHAYD is case in point here. He's talking about unescorted bombers going over a city. If somebody has a supposedly godly bomber, and they're physically flying over the target rather than firing stand off munitions from outside enemy SAM ranges, nine times out of ten they're being pretty dumb. Also having a stealth fighter escorting a big ass radar cross section bomber is being pretty dumb. The easiest solution here is common sense. Simply don't make something that is way way out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1319921907' post='2834660'] Agreed. For example, ordering unescorted bombers and paradrop aircraft to attack heavily defended military bases and cities. Or throwing thousands of unescorted landing ships at a heavily defended harbor that also has four battleships parking in it. No amount of tech superiority would cover up such massive blunders. [/quote] Ever since there has been rulings of "common sense can cover up blatant RP mistakes", I'm not so sure about this. The current system is no way at all broken. What is "broken" is concentrating all final authority on military technology in a small GM group, in addition to people being able to get away with almost anything (unless explicitly banned) if it is "internal" RP. We probably can just "fix" things if we establish a separate Tech Court and destroy the line between "external" and "internal" RP. Edited October 29, 2011 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1319923574' post='2834694'] Ever since there has been rulings of "common sense can cover up blatant RP mistakes", I'm not so sure about this. The current system is no way at all broken. What is "broken" is concentrating all final authority on military technology in a small GM group, in addition to people being able to get away with almost anything (unless explicitly banned) if it is "internal" RP. We probably can just "fix" things if we establish a separate Tech Court and destroy the line between "external" and "internal" RP. [/quote] That is one call well beyond the GM team and the community, it is by moderation that people are allowed to have their own threads with whatever content they want as long as it doesn't break forum rules. In cnrp everyone has the freedom to recognize internal rp's or not and as such there is no need at all to destroy this line. As for the issues with putting final authority on a small group of people, that is what we were hired to do. Enforce the rules on the CNRP continuity, on tech matters especially we do heavily consult more experienced members in the community. As Triyun said this is an issue blown well out of proportion over a single plane. Anything coming from this will be damaging in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1319923407' post='2834692'] Just as a note (and example of poor technology usage and foolishness) HHAYD is case in point here. He's talking about unescorted bombers going over a city. If somebody has a supposedly godly bomber, and they're physically flying over the target rather than firing stand off munitions from outside enemy SAM ranges, nine times out of ten they're being pretty dumb. [b]Also having a stealth fighter escorting a big ass radar cross section bomber is being pretty dumb. [/b] The easiest solution here is common sense. Simply don't make something that is way way out there. [/quote] Having escorts would help if the enemy can and will scramble fighter jets and if the escorts can also take out the SAMs. I recall a year or two ago somebody tried to spam unescorted paradrop aircraft against my air base, without softening up the anti-aircraft defenses or destroying the fighter jets. Edited October 29, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1319927184' post='2834720'] Having escorts would help if the enemy can and will scramble fighter jets and if the escorts can also take out the SAMs. I recall a year or two ago somebody tried to spam unescorted paradrop aircraft against my air base, without softening up the anti-aircraft defenses or destroying the fighter jets. [/quote] Actually a stealth fighter as escort for a very big non-stealth target defeats a lot of the purpose of stealth, if you need to go over an area with big targets you send in aircraft to achieve superiority first so escorts become not needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 I can arrange a demonstration for doin' it rite for you if you'd like HHAYD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.